Clarion Housing Association Limited (202111638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111638

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 September 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install motorised blinds to the outside of the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a Shared Owner of the landlord. The lease commenced on 17 February 2015. The landlord is part of a Group and there is a Head lease between the landlord and the development arm of the same Group. The Group being a developer as well as a landlord.
On 16 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that he was desperate to find a solution to the overheating problems in his flat. The resident said that he had had a previous request to install an external sun blind rejected, the landlord saying that the blind was deemed a fire risk. The resident said that his block had an EWS1(External Wall Survey), that the blinds were certified as safe, that there were other electrical installations on the outer walls of the development and that the environmental footprint of external sun blinds was considerably less than that of air conditioning units.
On 18 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding his query about installing sun blinds to his property. The resident was told that:
1. It would be able to grant permission provided the resident obtained any planning consents required and that he covered all the associated costs.
2. From an aesthetic point of view, it would want any sun blind to look similar to the one that was already installed and that it would ask the Managing Agent to monitor this on its behalf.
3. It had a standard licence that it would ask the resident to sign to carry out the works, which required him to employ reputable contractors and that all planning and building regulations be complied with. The landlord said that these should be sent to the managing agent who would then provide it with the certificates.
4. The resident would need permission in writing and directed him to its Customer Services team, suggesting that he attach the proposal for new external blinds document that he had forwarded with his query.
The resident forwarded his request for permission to install the blinds the same day.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to say that his query had been passed to its Customer Support team and, in a further email on 24 March 2021, advised that its Customer Support team were not taking on any new applications for alterations to properties until the current lockdown restriction had been lifted. The landlord apologised that the resident had been advised otherwise in previous email correspondence and said that this would be fed back to that team’s team leader to ensure if did not happen again.
On 31 March 2021, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about its refusal of his request to install an external sun blind to his balcony window. The resident referred to a letter he had received from the landlord, a copy of which has not been seen by this service. The resident said that:
1. It was difficult to understand the landlord’s claims of a fire risk caused by the cables and electric unit of the blinds.
2. There would be no visible cables on the wall and the electric source for the blinds would be inside his flat.
3. He had involved a Chartered Building Surveyor who did not identify any real fire risks.
4. The development already had two external blinds installations and both were electric.
5. The landlord was already aware of the overheating issues in his flat and that external blinds were the most environmentally friendly method to reduce this.
On 14 April 2021, following concerns raised by the resident, the landlord confirmed that his flat was on the list to be investigated regarding overheating.
On 22 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to chase its response to his complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 30 April 2021. The landlord acknowledged that it had received an appeal against its decision to refuse permission for the resident to install external blinds. The landlord said that this would be referred to its legal advisors on order to obtain advice about how best to respond to the resident’s appeal.
On 10 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint. The resident said that the following questions had not been addressed:
1. Why was the landlord refusing permission for him to install an external sun blind when other flats in the development had received permissions to install external blinds/awnings/air condition units to counter the problem with overheating of flats.
2. Why the evidence he had provided from his Chartered Building Surveyor, which stated that there was no fire risk caused by external blinds, not taken into account.
3. Why, when other managers at the landlord strongly endorsed external sun blinds, had permission still not been granted.
4. Why, when two other flats had recently had offers to install air conditioning paid for by the landlord, was the landlord employing a seemingly discriminatory strategy with regards to his request, given that external blinds were a far more ecologically sustainable solution than air conditioning.
5. Why the landlord had provided no alternative solution to the overheating problem in its response and no explanation or justification for the repeated refusal to install external sun blinds.
The landlord spoke to the resident about his complaint on 28 May 2021, confirmed that his complaint had been escalated to Stage two and that it would aim to provide its response within 20 working days.
In an internal email on 15 June 2021, the landlord’s complaints team noted that the landlord had obtained copies of the leases and that it was clear that leaseholders could not make alternations or additions to the exterior of the premises.
The landlord’s issued its stage two response on 16 June 2021. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in it responding to the complaint. The landlord said that it had reviewed all the correspondence and confirmed that its position remained the same in that it could not grant permission for a motorised blinds. The landlord said that it had been communicating with its Group Fire Safety and Assurance Manager and the feedback received was that motorised blinds raise serious concerns about Health and Safety mainly because of the motorised component. The landlord went on to explained that should there be any incident or damage to the block connected to the motorised blinds, it would be solely responsible even though it had not installed them and they did not belong to the landlord. This would leave it vulnerable and open to a multitude of challenges should any further issues arise.
The local councillor referred the resident’s complaint to this service on 6 August 2021. The councillor said that the landlord had not investigated this matter seriously, had ignored two professional fire safety reports, had not visited the site, had not explained why other flats had been given permission or received free air-conditioning units.

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.

On 3 November 2021, the head lessee emailed the resident about the installation of air conditioning to his flat. The head lessee said that it was willing to arrange for this at its own cost and provided the following information. It also asked the resident to let it know if he wished to proceed with the works:
1. Currently your lease precludes such changes to the property. In order to allow the works to proceed you, the landlord and itself, as the head lessee would enter into a licence which permitted the works to occur. This would be a legal agreement and it advised that the resident appoint a solicitor to act on his behalf. ·
2. The resident, the landlord and itself, as the head lessee, would also enter into a supplemental agreement, for which it again advised that the resident appoint a solicitor to act on his behalf. The head lessee explained that this was a legal document which sets out exactly what the works would be, the costs involved and who was responsible for paying those costs. Its approved contractors would complete the works, and would supply and install the system. Another contractor would carry out any necessary repairs or making good of associated decorations. The head lessee said that it had worked with these suppliers previously at this and other developments and were confident in the quality and cleanliness of their work.
3. Both parties would visit the property in advance to agree the scope of works with the resident. This agreed scope of works would form part of the supplement agreement (legal agreement) and once the legal agreements were in place the works could commence.
4. The timescales involved would be agreed when the scope of works was known but as an indication, works usually took no more than one or two weeks from start to finish.
5. The Head lessee again confirmed that it would bear all costs, except those charged by the resident’s own solicitor for services and advice they provided directly to him.

Assessment and findings

Relevant Agreements, Policies and Procedures

Clause 3.8.1 of both the Shared Ownership and the Head Lease clearly state that the Shared Owner and landlord, respectively, are not to (a) make any alterations or additions to the exterior of the premises, (d) in any way interfere with the outside of the Building.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure which states that the landlord will aim to provide its response at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days.

Assessment

The resident’s proposal to install motorised blinds to the outside of his property was suggested by him in order to seek a solution to ongoing overheating issues in his flat.
When the resident contacted the landlord on the resident 16 March 2021, to request permission to install the motorised blinds to the outside of his property, the landlord explained what the procedure would be. This would include the resident having to sign a standard licence, in order to carry out the works. There is no evidence of the landlord advising the resident of the reason for this, which would have been necessary particularly as his lease precluded such changes to his property.
The resident’s request was referred by the landlord to its Compliance Manager and Group Fire Safety and Assurance Manager. This was an appropriate step to the landlord to take in order to ensure there were would be no potential fire or other health and safety risks posed by the installation of the new blinds. A copy of the landlord’s initial refusal letter has not been seen by this service. However it is evident from the resident’s formal complaint that his proposal was refused on the grounds that the installation of motorised blinds would pose a fire risk.
On 31 March 2021, the resident logged a formal complaint about the landlord’s decision, raising concerns that the landlord had not considered the information he had been provided by his Chartered Building Surveyor, that other residents had installed similar blinds and that the landlord had provided no alternative proposal with regards to the overheating in his flat.
In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord should have issued its stage one response within 10 working days, by 14 April 2021. However, the landlord failed to do so, issuing its stage one response on 30 April 2021, an additional 12 working days later.
In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s appeal against its decision and said that it would be seeking further legal advice. However, it did not address the resident’s specific concerns regarding the information from his Chartered Building Surveyor, other residents having installed similar blinds and that it had provided no alternative suggestion.
When residents make complaints to their landlord, the Ombudsman not only expects the landlord to respond to the complaint within the timescales given in its complaints policy but also to consider and provide reasonable responses to the concerns raised by the resident as part of their complaint. In this case, the landlord did not do so.
The resident escalated his complaint on 10 May 2021, however, again the landlord failed to respond within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Given that the landlord’s policy states that it aims to provide its response at stage two within 20 working day, the landlord should have provided its response by 7 June 2021 but did not do so until 16 June 2021, an additional seven working days later.
In its stage two, and final response, the landlord did go some way to explaining its decision, including the involvement of its Group Fire Safety and Assurance Manager. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of its Group Fire Safety and Assurance Manager, it would also be reasonable to expect any evidence provided by the resident to be considered as part of any such assessment. If the landlord did do so, it did not advise the resident of this.
With regard to the issue of two other properties having previously installed similar blinds, this service has had sight of an internal landlord email which confirmed that it was addressing this issue with the other two properties. However, again there is no evidence of the resident being advised of this.
With regards to the resident’s complaint that the landlord had no provided any alternative suggestions, this too was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses and it was not until 3 November 2021, almost five months after the landlord’s final response, that the Head Lessee emailed the resident with a proposal to install air conditioning.
Whilst this was a long time for the resident to have to wait, it is evident from the correspondence from the head lessee that both it and the landlord had considered what other options might be available. A proposal was put forward for the installation of air conditioning to the resident’s property, the costs of which, with the exception of the costs charged by the resident’s solicitor, would be borne by the head lessee. It is noted that the resident had expressed concerns about the environmental footprint of air conditioning when compared to motorised blinds. However, given that overheating remained an issue in the property, and as the landlord had decided that the motorised blinds would pose a fire risk to the building, this would seem to be both a fair and reasonable alternative for the landlord and the lessee to propose.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to install motorised blinds to the outside of the property.

Reasons

The landlord failed to answer a number of specific questions raised by the resident in both his initial complaint and escalation request resulting in him feeling unnecessarily frustrated and that his concerns had not been listened to. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints policy at both stage one and stage two.

Orders and recommendations

That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £100 for its failure to answer a number of specific questions raised by the resident in both his initial complaint and escalation request resulting in him feeling unnecessarily frustrated and that his concerns had not been listened to.
  2. £100 for its failure to respond to the resident’s complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints policy at both stage one and stage two.